GOP thugs threaten election officials in all 50 states.
Doing so is a crime.
Volunteer attorneys needed in each state to prosecute the thugs. Attorneys Bob Bauer and Ben Ginsberg created a website to connect election officials with pro-bono attorneys.
Volunteer here:
https://eoldn.org/
There is an active effort to recruit rogue election officials to sabotage elections across the country.
BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE
ANALYSIS
read report here: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/addressing-insider-threats-elections
Our beloved Taliban Supremes are about to shred the Constitution by taking away another right it grants to citizens, specifically women. Of course, they might 'chicken out' at the last minute and actually uphold the law and precedent.
Nah - they ain't gonna do that. A couple of corporate shills, a drunk rapist and a Handmaiden won't chicken out. They're all in.
After all, they already put a citizen bounty on poor women's scalps, facilitated taking children from their parents, let corporations buy laws and favors, allow anyone to carry guns anywhere and allow a federal judge appointed by 45 to dictate United States foreign policy.
MONEY rules the NEW USA.
BUT as DEMS, we have the POWER for a little while. Let's use it.
Step 1: Chill the Champagne !
THEN:
Confiscate all military style guns immediately.
Make sedition a capital crime and arrest and imprison FOX news and other treasonous organizations.
Fire the bad judges - Roberts, Cavanaugh and Barret - an replace them with Alexandra Ocasio Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib and Pramila Jayapal. Never mind the numbers, we can just change the membership of the court.
Drop the filibuster.
Make partisan gerrymandering a Federal felony, then put the organizers in jail.
Create real voting protections under Federal, not state, law.
Make all social media platforms and the tech companies which host them into non-profit public utilities subject to libel and sedition laws.
I could go on, but we have to act before the Gang Of Prevaricators [GOP] steal power and elections.
We have thousands of years of written history where we can find examples of what to do.
Let the FUN begin............
We must have three things to save our Republic.
Each is required.
They are:
*** Federal voting rights legislation; without it, autocratic forces will steal power.
*** Fairness doctrine for all publishers and media; hold each liable for false and/or unproven statements. Without it, lies can be told and believed with no recourse.
*** Treat all social media as publishers for content they broadcast: make them liable for harm from misstatements appearing on each platform. Lies spread on social media - we can stop it.
Enacting these items will not guarantee our future but failure to enact any one of the three items will pave the way for autocrats to seize power.
Read his remarks in English at this link:
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181
I have seen Evil in other places - Russia's Gulags, Nazi concentration camps, China's Great March, Eastern Europe after World War II and Bangladesh refugee camps today, among too many more.
I see Evil here today, coming slowly.
NOT the Democrats; the Dems leave you alone if pay your taxes and don't break the law.
BUT, Republicans want your FREEDOM, your VOTE, your SOCIAL SECURITY, your GUNS and your HEALTHCARE. They will take them from you by any means necessary.
Make no mistake, the GOP has a concerted, coordinated effort to subvert our elections and destroy the rule of law in our Country. Republicans do not follow the usual rules of a political party. They are a violent mob which will do anything it can to retain power.
The GOP will use violence and threats of violence against you if you stand in their way. Republicans will beat you and the police sent to protect you with flagpoles carrying the American flag. They will bear spray you. They will kill you if you resist. The GOP will threaten your school age children on their social media accounts; they will threaten you with death in endless phone calls and emails. They will follow you and try to kidnap and murder you. Republican mobs with guns will stand outside your house. All this harms the elected and appointed people who manage United States of America political elections.
Wait, you say. Americans will never do that kind of stuff.
But, American GOP have already done all that and more. It will continue.
The Republican goal is simple: turn the United States of America into a Fascist dictatorship.
It CAN happen here. Our democracy and freedom rest on the few elected and appointed officials who are willing to face death threats to defend our right to vote. They are being attacked. If the attack succeeds, then we very well may have a Fascist dictatorship in the United States.
A Fascist government will directly harm the well being of the population - it is what Fascists do.
Here's what life under Fascism will look like:
Political debate, Elections: Opposition parties will cease overt political discussion or agitation because all their leaders will be in jail or deported. Voting will be rigged, government in power will receive 90% of votes.
Immigration: The borders will be closed. Only citizens approved by central government will be allowed to enter.
Political violence: Armed mobs will attack dissidents and racial minorities with violence and at will. Selected dissidents will be assassinated.
Yep.
Real truth.
Can you handle it ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FqXTCvDLeo
Wow !
Did you hear the latest from Q:
trump wins the 2024 election and then appoints Q as the official spokesperson of the trump government !
But, he sends all the private militia leaders to Guantanamo Bay prison and institutes a national gun confiscation program.
Your guy grabbed you with his great speeches for the 2016 campaign. He 'told it like it is.' SOMEBODY finally got it. The TRUTH - at last ! And he beat that bitch, Hillary !
When your guy talks, he makes you feel good about everything - that's why you trust him.
Then he did a lot of good stuff for the country, things like standing up to the Chinese, closing the border during Covid, keeping the invasion of immigrants away, owning the Libs and a lot of other things I can't remember right now, but you can look them up..
Now your guy is saying that Biden stole the 2020 election and that your guy really, really won the election and is still the President! Gotta be true when your guy says it is !
In that case, then you know what to do - and you know you will feel better when you do it. A good American stands up and defends the country against radical takeovers and a stolen election every day. And, so do you. You march, you protest, exercise your 1st Amendment right of free speech, even if some wackos do some violence - we're all on the same side after all: Standing up for America. Yeah ! And, you may send some cash contributions - to save the USA.
This is important stuff here - saving the country. So a careful man may want to check out some of the things he says, your guy. Maybe find some verification. After all you might be facing jail time if he made a little mistake; it doesn't take a lot of errors today to create a real problem.
Hold on a minute: There's a bit of an issue, here.
Namely: There is no independent verification of his claims, it's his word only.
Zero verification, just random repetition.
ZERO. Diddly squat.
But wait! He took a lot of stuff to court and there are a lot of people verifying the elections to be sure there really was actual Biden vote stealing and that the elections were crooked, for real.
He took his claims to court in 60 lawsuits in different states; 60 lawsuits.
The thing is - he LOST EVERY SINGLE challenge! All of them.
None of it is true - none !
So then why does he keep making the claims of election fraud every day?
Maybe, just maybe, he keeps making those claims because you and his other fans send him more money every time he makes a statement.
Maybe it is just a money making scam for him and he does not believe a single word he says.
Makes you stop and think..
The United States faces an existential challenge.
It is this: Will trump's Fascist insurrection overwhelm the rule of law and our Democracy?
We can prevent this, but ONLY if we can work together for the common good.
A few Republican Senators and Representatives can vote with Democrats to enact non-partisan legislation to prevent a Fascist takeover. Other countries have done it.
We can all work together by finding something we all share.
Our emotional division may create our political divisions.
One group of Americans addresses political discussions in emotional terms. Here is an example: 'Proposition A [insert talking point here] makes me feel good so it must be true. And, I want to feel good since life is difficult right now. A political movement today tells me who is making me feel bad and I want to hurt them.'
Another group of Americans approaches things differently: 'Policy B [insert policy here] helps most Americans live better lives so I vote for politicians who support that policy. But, I am afraid that an insurrection can remove that policy.'
Fear seems to be a common ground. Perhaps we can use fear to motivate cooperation, as suggested by my wife Alexandra.
We say this to the emotionally motivated: 'We share your fear of losing the conditions you like, but the political movement that appeals to your fears today likely will create the exact conditions you fear and simultaneously destroy all the things you like if they get into power.' [See post below titled 'America After Coup' for a list of things Fascism will destroy]
We say this to the Policy motivated: 'We share your concern of a Fascist takeover. The best way to prevent that is to work together with some GOP politicians to enact laws to prevent it. We will likely fail to prevent an insurrection if we fail to work together.'
Make no mistake - trump directs a concerted campaign to install a Fascist dictatorship in the United States during or before the 2024 election for President.
Fascists pay no regard to any legal measures preventing their seizure of power by force. They will seize power with whatever means they can find.
This is the most important fact of life today.
Earlier governments faced a similar situation in the Great Depression; some were able to unite disparate factions to oppose Fascist tyranny and prevent a takeover, but some were not able to unite and became Fascist.
We need a few GOP Senators and Representatives to join Democrats in passing needed antifascist legislation.
If the GOP continues its self-serving cowardice and fails to join Democrat efforts to thwart Fascism, it is likely that democracy in the United States will end.
It can be done:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/13/world/europe/czech-populism-strongmen.html
trump will run in 2024.
He expects to lose the vote.
He will try to orchestrate an insurrection and violent takeover of the United States government and steal the Presidency. Plans are underway today for that project.
Here's how it might work:
The election is close; several swing states can tip the election if they vote for him.
The election favors Biden, but trump sycophants in key states control the elections.
trump goon Proud Boys, etc., demonstrate violently outside of the state capitols.
Sycophants declare the election in favor of trump since violence near the State capitol provides an 'emergency' excuse.
Mobs of goons prevent, violently, an orderly examination of the facts.
Supreme Court rules in trump favor.
He is inaugurated and installs goons and sycophants in key positions.
He purges Federal and States official who speak against the coup.
He suspends the Constitution and installs himself as President for Life.
There is a potential strategy choice for the GOP which explains their current intransigence on the national debt, judges, etc., etc.
It is this: Creating instability in the United States of America creates an impression among some Americans that the country is weak because Democrats cannot govern.
If widely held, that perception can improve GOP chances in future elections.
Perhaps Mr. McConnel chooses his actions in conformance with the goal of creating chaos instead of helping the country.
trump and his financial backers are working today to install an autocratic government and eliminate American democracy including our free elections. There is no time to debate this. The critical time happens in the 2024 Presidential election.
If we fail, here's what will happen to America After the Coup:
America After Coup - Guns: The regime will confiscate all firearms, by force if necessary. They may allow shotguns and pistols for some rural residents.
America After Coup - Business Ownership: If a crony or government employee likes your business he may simply walk in, change the locks and use the police to force you out without compensation. Of course you will object. Private property - how quaint; when the police and courts serve the autocrat, the laws become moot.
America After Coup - Labor Unions: Labor unions will be controlled by management. Agitators will be fired or jailed. Work weeks will increase, vacations will disappear, mandatory unpaid overtime will affect all workers.
America After Coup - Worker Safety: Laws protecting workers from harm will become moot or will cease to exist. There will be no regulation or consequences to businesses for violating worker safety practices.
America After Coup - Judiciary: The regime will remove all judges deemed unsympathetic to the regime; laws will be changed to facilitate their removal. The regime will assassinate some judges.
America After Coup - Political debate: Opposition parties will cease overt political agitation because all their leaders will be in jail or deported.
America After Coup - Elections: Voting will be rigged, government in power will receive 90% of votes. Agitators - see above.
America After Coup - Education: The content and curriculum will be created by the central government. Teachers failing to present approved material will be fired.
America After Coup - Political Protest: Bloggers and online activists engaging in divisive activities will be jailed.
America After Coup - Media: All broadcast media will become subsidiaries of FOX. All publishing media will be controlled by central government.
America After Coup - Immigration: The borders will be closed. Only citizens approved by central government will be allowed to enter.
America After Coup - Political violence: Armed mobs will attack dissidents and racial minorities with violence and at will. Selected dissidents will be assassinated.
America After Coup - Medical Care: Will be rationed and available only to friends of the regime. The regime decides which procedures to eliminate altogether.
America After Coup - Pensions and Social Benefits: They will be reduced whenever the government needs extra cash, which will be continuous since regime friends seek and receive sanctioned tax avoidance.
America After Coup - Income inequality: Our disastrous wealth gap widens even further; billionaires control the regime.
Who supports the coup?
The coup is supported by some individuals, corporations and politicians who seek power and financial gain at the expense of our society.
Can we stop it?
Maybe we can, but it is 50/50 at this time.
The future is in our hands, literally. In order to stop it we must become politically active since our future depends on our activity.
Here's the least we can do:
Enter opposition Democratic candidates in every single election for National, State or Municipal office where a 'Stop the Steal' candidate stands for office. Call out the Radical candidate for his/her positions.
Resist any and all political mobs with armed forces from Police and National Guard. Purge trump sympathizers from all military and law enforcement ranks.
Challenge in Court every Federal, State and Municipal law deemed unconstitutional.
Be alert to new tactics from the Right designed to weaken elections.
Child abuse damages a child for life. All child abuse is violence upon a child.
Whether the violence is sexual or non-sexual, abused children grow into traumatized adults; some adapt and function with emotional scars and some cannot.
Individual actors in the government of United States of America and the national organizations established to protect child athletes have shamed us all by failing to protect children from predators, especially AFTER SOME VICTIMS REPORTED ABUSE.
Listen to the stories here: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4977158/us-gymnasts-testify-sexual-abuses-larry-nasser
I will mince no words:
The Supreme Court of the United States has abandoned any pretense to decency, respect, protection of the weak and upholding the Constitution or the rule of law.
[See below for Code of Conduct that has been violated.]
The Court's failure to stop the Texas abortion law has loosed the evils of bounty hunters and other scum to prey upon defenseless women.
I cannot find words short of vile profanity to describe the effects of what the Court has done.
This law and this Court cannot stand.
September 11, UPDATE: Justice Barret mistakenly calls outrage over Texas law 'politics'.
Question: How has compassion for the weak become 'politics'?
[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-mitch-mcconnell-center-louisville-judges-partisan]
[Code of Conduct for United States Judges - https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/code_of_conduct_for_united_states_judges_effective_march_12_2019.pdf]
'Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary
An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2A, Ch. 2 Page 3
COMMENTARY
Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends on public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges. The integrity and independence of judges depend in turn on their acting without fear or favor. Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law and should comply with this Code.
Adherence to this responsibility helps to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. Conversely, violation of this Code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and injures our system of government under law'
Taliban Court - Lynda Pepitone
Far-Right Extremists and other White supremacists plan a rally in Washington DC on September 18.
They want to show support for the traitors currently in jail due to participation in the January 6 insurrection.
It is VERY likely that they will be violent and that their violence will occur in several different locations.
The National Security interests of the United States require that ALL of them who commit any infraction should be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
We govern the United States with elections - not with mob violence.
The idea is pretty much dead that we can export the economic and political systems of the United States to underdeveloped countries in order to ensure their development.
Free markets and free elections do not guarantee prosperity and freedom in and of themselves. Any country requires an extensive system of support for those institutions to prevent crooks from taking over the country.
Perhaps we can actually export some good to other countries instead of waiting around until a terrorist group forces us to declare war. In addition, avoiding war can help ensure our National Security.
Warning: It may take some creative thinking.
How about this: The United States government can require that American companies operating in underdeveloped countries pay high enough wages to local workers that they can afford a middle class existence.
If companies convincingly demonstrate they cannot afford adequate wages due to competitive pressures, the United States may subsidize those wages.
Moreover, in addition we can ensure adequate medical care, decent housing and basic levels of education to those workers. Of course, we will ask workers to accept a code of conduct since they will be watched closely.
Even if the number of workers is small compared to the country's population, the United States may be seen as the purveyor of good instead of the purveyor of death.
Vendors and locals will flock to the area where the workers reside and will carry news of the good life throughout the country.
We must secure a guarantee from the local government that they will not steal the wages or benefits from the workers. If the government cannot supply that guarantee we can choose to enforce it with troops.
I want to live in a country that is respected for the good it does instead of feared for the death and misery it brings.
Yes, I understand that we need to eliminate terror threats to the homeland with violence and death. But, that CANNOT be all that we do.
General Mark A. Milley - Department of Defense was correct when he suggested that it is too early for an AAR, or After Action Report in Afghanistan. But, perhaps there are some useful forward looking ideas from our experience to date.
Threats to the National Security of the United States can originate in many countries. Threats may be from new diseases or from terrorist organizations. Terrorist organization members can be native to the subject country or imported from other areas. Increasingly, many terror group members do not identify as nationals of any recognized nation state.
USA Policy toward Terrorist hosting countries.
To be clear: Hosts may or may not acknowledge and encourage terrorists. Hosting does not mean complicity; it simply designates terrorist’s location.
One of the theories about improving our National Security is to create enough prosperity inside a terrorist hosting country that its residents will not pose a threat. This theory has at least one flaw: it assumes that the material well-being of a country’s residents is a vaccine against terror directed toward the United States. It assumes also that free elections will provide an additional vaccine against terror directed toward the USA.
The EU has a better template for nation building IMHO, as seen here [https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_20_2416].
Occasionally American troops deploy to a terror hosting country in an attempt to eliminate the threat terrorists pose to the United States. Sometimes, but not always, those troops are deployed at the invitation of the host country.
Once they neutralize the specific threat, then the troops can be recalled and the host country can go about its affairs.
Some defense contractors and politicians in the United States may lobby for additional aid to the host country to make it stronger in the face of terrorists or disease. It is possible the lobbyists suggest the aid will prop up the host government and thereby help United States security. Perhaps they rely on the hope that the aid can install the twin vaccines of material prosperity and free elections.
Two Divergent United States' Policies Toward Host Countries
One policy choice to control a threat is to enter a country whether invited or not. Once we neutralize the threat, we should withdraw any excess troops or NGO's.
This is a better default option than the alternative of nation building. We recognize that United States resources are finite and that opportunities to deploy resources are large.
We choose nation building wisely by ensuring that the host country we intend to rebuild will benefit from our efforts. Two broad statistics can indicate whether a nation is likely to benefit from United States efforts. First, we look at the distribution of income and wealth among the nation's population. Extreme inequalities may predict failure of our efforts since our aid will likely accrue to the already wealthy population within the country and may exacerbate any tendencies toward civil conflict in that nation.
GINI
One recognized measure of inequality is called the GINI coefficient. A high Gini score may predict failure of nation building activity, while a low score may predict a higher likelihood of success.
'In economics, the Gini coefficient (/ˈdʒiːni/ JEE-nee), sometimes called the Gini index or Gini ratio, is a measure of statistical dispersion intended to represent the income inequality or wealth inequality within a nation or any other group of people. It was developed by the Italian statistician and sociologist Corrado Gini.
The Gini coefficient measures the inequality among values of a frequency distribution (for example, levels of income). A Gini coefficient of zero expresses perfect equality, where all values are the same (for example, where everyone has the same income). A Gini coefficient of one (or 100%) expresses maximal inequality among values (e.g., for a large number of people where only one person has all the income or consumption and all others have none, the Gini coefficient will be nearly one).' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient#:~:text=In%20economics%2C%20the%20Gini%20coefficient,any%20other%20group%20of%20people.]
For example, real Gini scores ranges between 25 at the low, or better, end to 63 at the higher, or worse, end.
[https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/SI.POV.GINI/rankings]
Norway scores a Gini of 27.5, while Zambia scores 63.0. The USA scores 41.5.
CORRUPTION
Secondly, nation building where there is corruption will likely fail since funds spent in such a country will likely be deposited in foreign bank accounts of wealthy people and not reach the wider population.
Corruption levels may predict nation building's likely success or failure, especially when combined with GINI scores. Good nation building candidates have records of low corruption and low-income inequalities; this combination indicates that projects designed to benefit the entire country will be completed successfully.
We have no statistics of active corruption since folks do not record their illegal activities in public forums. Instead, we have compilations of likely corruption levels as perceived by business and the press.
Transparency International [https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2020/index] compiles these perceptions and publishes an index of those perceptions.
New Zealand scores 88 as the least corrupt country while Yemen and Afghanistan score much lower at about 15; the USA scores 67.
UPDATE 2:
SECULAR STATES:
Governments dominated by religious movements which act in favor of their religious aspirations at the expense of the material well being of their populations should be excluded from any nation building efforts by the United States. ['Religious leaders should not be running countries', UAE Crown Prince as quoted in CALL SIGN CHAOS, Jim Mattis and Bing West, Random House, New York, 2019, p. 196]
PREDICTIONS
It has been said that 'all predictions are wrong, but some are useful'. Thus, I offer the following with infinite humility.
Combining the above indicators for Afghanistan indicates a high likelihood that nation building would fail since their unfavorable corruption score indicated by an unfavorable honesty perception rating of 15 combined with an unfavorable World Bank GINI of 33 as measured in neighboring Pakistan representing the area [used here since no ratings were published for Afghanistan].
Perhaps US defense contractors lobbied for the Nation Building attempts in Afghanistan undertaken after Bin Laden was killed.
Are Non-Profits Key to United States National Security?
Nations with high income inequality and widespread corruption cannot in all likelihood create the essential services and/or businesses necessary to support a viable economy and thus create effective counters to security threats from outside forces.
The United States may nevertheless designate such a nation as critical to our National Security due to geo-political pressures.
We should eshcew the profit motive and private, entrepremeurial business model in industries in such nations that the United States designates as critical to the host nation's security.
We should consider a non-profit model with rigorous oversight to ensure transparent operations and minimal theft opportunities for those enterprises.
National military may wish to fight for the country when essential services are delivered competently and fairly and the managers of those enterprises do not steal from the enterprise.
Soldiers will choose not to fight for the opposite.
Should a geo-poltiical adversary choose to support a nation with high corruption and inequality, we can assume that it will drain their, our adversary's, treasure.
And it is highly unlikely that soldiers of the client state will fight effectively against us in any engagement.
Where will you place 45 on this list ??
10: Cassius and Brutus
Think modern-day politics are a mess? Consider ancient Rome. Cassius, a Roman general who exceled at his job wasn't a big fan of fellow general and Roman senator Julius Caesar.
As Caesar rose to power on a populous wave and declared himself Rome's leader for life, Cassius began to get nervous about Caesar's widespread rule. Eventually, he convinced his friend and fellow Roman general Brutus to feel the same way. Although Brutus was Caesar's friend, too, he was guided by a sense of duty that made him vulnerable to Cassius' emotional manipulation.
After Cassius sent Brutus fake letters outlining the people's support for Caesar's death, Brutus decided to act on a misguided sense of honor. On the Ides of March (March 15), 44 B.C.E., Brutus led a group of senators to stab Caesar to death on the senate floor 23 times, making Cassius and Brutus one of history's first -- and most notorious -- traitorous pairs [source: Vernon].
9: Judas Iscariot
Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus Christ for 30 pieces of silver, and his name has been synonymous with greedy treachery ever since.
Judas was one of Jesus' 12 apostles and the account of Judas' traitorous act is recorded in the Bible's canonical gospels, which are Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. Matthew 26:14-16 (KJV) reads, "Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests and said unto them, 'What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you?' And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of sliver."
Jesus was targeted by the chief priests, and Judas betrayed him with a kiss. The kiss wasn't a sign of affection; it was actually a signal to awaiting soldiers who immediately arrested Jesus and led him to the high priests. Jesus was accused of blasphemy, found guilty, bound and delivered to Pontius Pilate, the governor, who sentenced him to death. Soldiers stripped Jesus, placed a crown of thorns upon his head and crucified him by nailing him to a cross. Judas was so filled with remorse that he attempted to return the silver, but the priests wouldn't accept it. In the end, Judas hung himself.
Little else is known about Judas' life. Some historians believe Judas' last name, Iscariot, is closely linked to the Latin word for murderer -- sicarius -- and may not really be his family name at all [sources: Biography, Jesus Central]. In any case, "Judas" remains another word for "traitor" even today.
8: Benedict Arnold
By the time Benedict Arnold reached adulthood, family financial constraints had forced him to withdraw from school; yellow fever had killed three of his siblings and he'd become responsible for his father, a frequently incarcerated alcoholic who squandered the family's fortune.
Arnold managed to become an international merchant whose financial success was stymied by British-imposed tax acts. He fought back by joining the military group, the Sons of Liberty, at times using his own money to train and equip troops. Successful battles against the British gained him the admiration of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, but also a permanently injured leg. With civilian leaders stinting on supplies for the army and popular support for the American Revolution declining, a disillusioned Arnold began to think his country might be better off under British rule.
He was appointed to run West Point, a key military position during the Revolutionary War. Arnold betrayed America by offering to sell plans of the fort, including the location of its armament stores and other war secrets, to the British for an amount that would equal $3 million today.
When the treasonous plot was intercepted in 1780, Arnold went from hero to zero. He was convicted of treason, and his name was erased from military records. Arnold began fighting for England and eventually moved to London. He spent the rest of his life trying to ingratiate himself with British trading companies and the British military. He was unsuccessful at both pursuits and died in 1801 [sources: Biography, Creighton].
7: Robert Ford
Jesse James may have been one of the United State's most infamous outlaws, but the man who shot him received the rancor of generations.
James led the James Gang on a robbery spree during the late 1800s that targeted everything from banks to trains to ordinary people. The robberies continued for about 16 years across the Midwest, coming to an abrupt end in 1876 when the gang murdered two people during a botched bank robbery. Several gang members were captured, but Jesse James managed to escape, robbing just one more train in 1880 -- the same year a Missouri governor put a price on his head.
Turns out, Robert Ford, a member of James' own gang, would become a traitor. On April 3, 1882, he killed James by shooting him in the back. Ford killed James not only for the $10,000 reward he planned to split with his brother Charles, but also because the Missouri governor had promised the brothers their crimes would be pardoned.
After Ford murdered James, he didn't receive a hero's welcome as he'd hoped, or even the entire reward. Instead, he was labeled a coward and became a drifter. Ironically, Ford met his end when a fellow outlaw shot him in the chest, seeking fame for killing the ultimate coward [sources: Lofty, History].
6: Mata Hari
Mata Hari may be one of history's most famous double agents, but she wasn't a good one. The "secrets" she gained from rival German and French sources were usually old news. Her real skills, it seems, were of a more personal persuasion.
Born Margaretha Zelle to a wealthy Dutch family that fell on hard times, she was parceled off to relatives, eventually married a stern man several years her senior and endured years of abuse. By the time she neared 30, she was divorced, living in Paris and calling herself Mata Hari, which means "eye of dawn" in Malaysian. She reinvented herself as a temple dancer from India.
From 1905 to 1912, Hari was credited with turning the striptease into a theatrical art form. However, as her age and weight increased, she moved from exotic dancer to courtesan. One of her wealthy French supporters recruited her to bed a German officer and find out his secrets in exchange for money. But the officer became suspicious and fed her old information. Meanwhile the French intercepted a message from Germany with Hari's code name, which made them believe she was also spying for Germany.
Hari was arrested and held in a French prison where a curious public queued into the streets to catch a glimpse of her during trial. She was sentenced to death for treason and led from her cell, head held high and refusing to wear a blindfold. Upon seeing a 12-man firing squad, she blew them a kiss before being shot and killed in 1917 [source: Noe].
5: Ezra Pound
Don't think a poetry prize can be controversial? The first Bollingen Prize in Poetry awarded by a congressionally appointed literary panel in 1949 is still making waves. And it's no wonder.
The recipient was Ezra Pound, an American expatriate who'd been indicted for treason against the U.S. during World War II. At the time of the award, Pound was confined to a Washington, D.C. hospital after being declared insane.
Born in Idaho, Pound became a poet and critic, and was arguably one of the most influential voices in 20th century English and American literature. As he lived and worked in London and Paris, Pound became incensed by the lives lost during World War I and the injustices he saw in the world. By 1924, he'd moved to Italy where the fascist leanings of Benito Mussolini captured his attention. Becoming increasingly radical during the 1930s and 1940s, Pound publicly supported Adolph Hitler.
As World War II broke out, the Italian government paid him to produce radio broadcasts that insulted the U.S. and supported fascism. After hundreds of these broadcasts, Pound was arrested in 1945 by Americans in Italy. He was charged with treason and spent months in a U.S. military camp writing one of his best-known works, "Pisan Cantos," before being hospitalized in the U.S.
Nine years after receiving the Bollingen Prize for "Pisan Cantos," he was released and returned to Italy, where he lived until his death in 1972 [source: Biography].
4: Tokyo Rose
During World War II, the Japanese-American voice that emanated from the radio, attempting to demoralize American troops fighting in the Pacific, was referred to as Tokyo Rose.
And that's when things went terribly wrong for an American woman of Japanese descent. Iva Toguri d'Aquino lived in Tokyo, sent there by her family to care for an ailing relative, and was hired by a local radio station for a secretive propaganda plan -- one so secretive, she may not have known she was participating in it.
A British-born major and radio personality named Charles Hughes Cousens had been captured by the Japanese and ordered to produce a radio program that would undermine the Allies' morale. Instead Cousens designed a music-heavy show that would negate the propaganda campaign. D'Aquino and other women were recruited to participate. She took the broadcast name Orphan Ann (an homage to troops "orphaned" by their Allies in the Pacific). Many of her comments came across as humorous rather than ominous.
Despite intelligence reports that Tokyo Rose was not one person, journalists linked the woman known as Orphan Ann to Tokyo Rose. D'Aquino was taken into military custody. Even though the U.S. army found no evidence of her broadcasting secret military information, she was transported to the U.S., where she was tried for treason.
In 1949, a jury found her guilty on one of eight charges that alleged she broadcast news of American ships that were sunk. She was sentenced to 10 years in prison. She was pardoned by President Gerald Ford in 1977 [source: Pierce].
3: Vidkun Quisling
Vidkun Quisling was a Norwegian army officer who was in cahoots with the Germans during their occupation of his home country during World War II.
Quisling joined the Norwegian Army in 1911, where his duties included humanitarian work in Russia and for the League of Nations. He later became minister of defense and was known for taking a strict stance on striking workers. He resigned in 1933 to pursue the formation of a National Union Party, which was an anti-union organization with fascist leanings.
In 1940, Quisling made a power grab. After meeting with Adolf Hitler, whom he encouraged to conquer Norway, he waited for the German occupation to become complete -- and then appointed himself Norway's leader. His reign lasted only a week before he was demoted by German forces to "minister president." That unfortunately, didn't stop him from sentencing almost 1,000 Jewish people to concentration camps [source: Encyclopaedia Britannica].
At the end of World War II in 1945, Quisling was found guilty of treason and executed. His name would forever live in infamy, as "quisling" became a synonym for traitor or collaborator [source: Encyclopaedia Britannica].
2: The Cambridge Five
A womanizer who married four times. A flamboyant gay man with a penchant for drunkenness. A famous art historian knighted by Queen Elizabeth II. It may sound like the lineup for a new HBO miniseries, but these men were real-life spies during World War II and beyond. Along with two fellow Cambridge University graduates, they penetrated British intelligence agencies and turned over secrets to the Soviets.
The Cambridge Five -- Harold "Kim" Philby, Donald Maclean, Guy Burgess, Anthony Blunt and John Cairncross -- were members of the British elite and so ensconced in their communist beliefs they refused payment for their spy work.
All were hired to work in key British intelligence positions and continually alerted Moscow about British and U.S. plans, including efforts to construct an atomic bomb in 1941 and Korean War strategy, causing the deaths of many. Things started unraveling when Americans deciphered a coded Soviet message that implicated Maclean. Philby warned him, and in 1951 Maclean and the flamboyant Burgess promptly defected to Russia -- a move that left the remaining spies under a low-hanging cloud of suspicion.
Philby and Cairncross were investigated by MI6, the British foreign intelligence service, but not charged. Nevertheless, both were forced to resign. Cairncross moved to France while Philby escaped to Russia in 1963. Blunt confessed and was granted immunity to remain in England. He was stripped of his knighthood when Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher publicly revealed his espionage in 1979. Maclean, Philby (who had an affair with Maclean's wife) and Burgess all lived in Moscow until their deaths, nostalgic for England. None of the five were ever charged with any crimes [sources: Boghardt,Barnes].
1: Robert Hanssen
Here's one that took the U.S. public by surprise. Robert Hanssen, a 25-year FBI agent and church-going family man, was also a long-time double agent for the Soviet Union.
Hanssen worked as a liaison between the FBI and the office responsible for tracking the identities of spies working in the U.S. By the early 2000s, investigators believed he had spent 20 years sharing state secrets. They suspected he'd revealed the identities of dozens of Soviet agents working for the U.S. and led to the killing of several.
And Hanssen didn't stop there. He fed the Soviet government U.S. plans, including the procedures for dealing with and retaliating against a Soviet nuclear attack. Although he was paid $1.4 million and some diamonds for his efforts, colleagues said he seemed to have been more motivated by playing the spy game than by greed.
Hanssen was caught when the FBI paid a former KGB agent to disclose the identity of the mole operating in the FBI. In 2002, Hanssen pled guilty to 15 counts of espionage and conspiracy. He was sentenced to life in prison [sources: CNN, New York Times].
Source: [https://history.howstuffworks.com/historical-figures/10-history-notorious-traitors.htm]
The United States is experiencing abnormally high levels of infectious disease and violent social unrest.
Some of these two streams of civil malaise is encouraged by unrestrained and unsupported expressions on various social media platforms. Some of these expressions may be outright falsehoods or opinions offered with no supporting facts. Many such comments are analogous to 'yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater.'
Social media also tailors messages to individual people so that most social media users do not receive messages with differing perspectives. Some have called that an 'echo chamber' where social media consumers see only messages with which they agree.
Commentators argue that this 'echo chamber' effect has contributed to both the unnecessary death of hundreds of thousands of United States Citizens and an attempted coup to overthrow the legitimate government of the United States.
The folks who post inflammatory comments may be motivated by either ignorance and/or a desire to weaken the United States. While traditional civil and criminal statutes probably are too blunt of an instrument to distinguish between these motives, such statutes can, and should, address the conduct itself.
The National Security of the United States requires that the Federal government address these actions.
Social media companies which facilitate such postings written by their users act as publishers.
'Publishing is the activity of making information, literature, music, software and other content available to the public for sale or for free. Traditionally, the term refers to the distribution of printed works, such as books, newspapers, and magazines. With the advent of digital information systems, the scope has expanded to include electronic publishing such as ebooks, academic journals, micropublishing, websites, blogs, video game publishing, and the like.'
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publishing]
Social media companies, however, are seemingly immune from the consequences and controls placed on more traditional publishers. See RISKS below for a discussion of those restraints from [https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/risks-associated-publication].
Social media companies have dodged the regulation and consequences faced by normal publishers to date; but, the National Security interests of the United States now require that those exemptions be terminated.
Should the normal controls on publishers outlined below prove insufficient to restrain social medias' contributions to unrest and death, the Federal government should move toward direct controls aggressively.
Freedom of Speech arguments do not determine that Social Media remain free from consequences or regulations since traditional publishers have managed to demonstrate more responsible conduct without violating the First Amendment.
RISKS OF PUBLISHING
[https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/risks-associated-publication]
'Every time you publish something online, whether it's a news article, blog post, podcast, video, or even a user comment, you open yourself up to potential legal liability. This shouldn't come as too much of a surprise because the Internet, after all, is available to anyone who wishes to connect to the network, and even the smallest blog or most obscure discussion forum has the potential to reach hundreds of millions of people throughout the world.
Often the legal risks are small, but not always. The risks you could face when you publish online can take a number of forms, depending on what and how you publish. The sections that follow are not intended to make you an expert on media law, but merely to help you identify potential "red flags" so that when you publish something that might result in liability, you will know to be extra careful and will take the necessary steps to minimize your potential legal risks.
Let's start with the more obvious risks.
First, if you publish information that harms the reputation of another person, group, or organization, or inflicts emotional distress upon another person, you may be liable for "defamation" or "false light." Defamation is the term for a legal claim involving injury to reputation caused by false statements of fact and includes both libel (typically written or recorded statements) and slander (typically spoken statements). False light, which is similar to defamation, generally involves untrue factual implications about the subject that, although they might not hold the subject up to scorn or ridicule, nevertheless cause emotional distress. The crux of both of these claims is falsity; with very rare exceptions, truthful statements and implications that harm another's reputation will not create liability, although they may open you up to other forms of liability if the information you publish is of a personal or highly private nature. We explain the details of defamation and false light and provide some practical tips for avoiding defamation and false light claims in the section on Publishing Information that Harms Reputation.
Second, if you publish private or personal information about someone without their permission, you potentially expose yourself to legal liability even if your portrayal is factually accurate. For example, in most states you can be sued for publishing private facts about another person, even if those facts are true. The term "private facts" refers to information about someone's personal life that has not previously been revealed to the public, that is not of legitimate public concern, and the publication of which would be offensive to a reasonable person. This could include such things as writing about a person's medical condition, sexual activities, or financial troubles.
If you use someone else's name, likeness, or other personal attributes without their permission for an exploitative purpose you could also face liability for misappropriation or violation of the right of publicity. Usually, people run into trouble in this area when they use someone's name or photograph in a commercial setting, such as in advertising or other promotional activities. But, some states also prohibit use of another person's identity for the user's own personal benefit, whether or not the purpose is strictly commercial. We discuss the details of misappropriation/right of publicity and private facts claims and provide some practical tips for avoiding these claims in the section on Publishing Personal and Private Information.
Third, if you have web forums, allow reader comments, host guest bloggers on your site, or if you repost information that you receive from RSS feeds, section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA 230”) will likely shield you from liability for certain kinds of problematic statements made by your users, guests and other third-parties on your site. This important federal law protects you from tort liability for statements contained in these materials – and any other user-submitted content – you publish on your site. You will not lose this immunity even if you moderate or edit this content, whether for accuracy or civility, so long as your edits do not substantially alter the meaning of the original statements. Keep in mind that CDA 230 will only protect you if a third-party – not you or your employee or someone acting under your direction – posts something on your blog or website. It does not shield you from liability for your own statements. We cover this protection in more detail in the section on Publishing the Statements and Content of Others.
Fourth, if you publish or use the creative work of others, their trademarks, or certain confidential business information without the permission of the owner, you may be exposing yourself to legal liability for violations of intellectual property law. Fortunately, if you allow your site's user to post this type of content you can protect yourself from copyright infringement claims (but not trademark or other intellectual property claims) under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). In order to take advantage of the DMCA, you must register an agent with the Copyright Office to receive notices of infringement, establish effective "notice-and-takedown" procedures, promptly remove content when a copyright owner notifies you that it is infringing, and have no knowledge that the material in question is infringing. We cover liability associated with copyright, trademark, and trade secrets, as well as the procedures you should follow under the DMCA, in the section on Intellectual Property.
Fifth, if you are a blogger or social media user who reviews or otherwise writes about products and services, the Federal Trade Commission has issued "Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising" that may impose disclosure requirements on you. These guidelines require that you disclose "material connections" you may have with a company whose products or services you "endorse." Without the legal jargon, this means that bloggers and social media users must disclose their relationship with a company when they are being paid or otherwise compensated by the company to comment favorably on its products or services. We cover these requirements in the section on Publishing Product or Service Endorsements.
Lastly, as you publish your work online you may want to correct things you have previously published. Your willingness to fix past errors in your work will provide several benefits. It will make your work more accurate and reliable and will likely diminish your liability for defamation and other potential legal claims. We explain the benefits of correcting your errors and provide some practical tips for handling requests to correct or remove material in the section on Correcting or Retracting Your Work After Publication.'
Social media companies are publishers. Facebook, Twitter, et al. See below for definition of publishing.
Lies and propaganda published on social media destroy social cohesion and contribute to political violence.
See below for RISKS.
Requiring Social Media companies to face normal publishing risks can help the national security of the United States.
Social media CAN be subjected to those RISKS by legislative action. An additional RISK for social media can be disconnection from the internet.
Social media businesses lobby to prevent government from applying those risks to them because they profit greatly from avoiding such RISKS.
DEFINITION: PUBLISH
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publishing]
'Publishing is the activity of making information, literature, music, software and other content available to the public for sale or for free.[1] Traditionally, the term refers to the distribution of printed works, such as books, newspapers, and magazines. With the advent of digital information systems, the scope has expanded to include electronic publishing such as ebooks, academic journals, micropublishing, websites, blogs, video game publishing, and the like.
Publishing may produce private, club, commons or public goods and may be conducted as a commercial, public, social or community activity.[2] The commercial publishing industry ranges from large multinational conglomerates such as Bertelsmann, RELX, Pearson and Thomson Reuters[3] to thousands of small independents. It has various divisions such as: trade/retail publishing of fiction and non-fiction, educational publishing (k-12) and academic and scientific publishing.[4] Publishing is also undertaken by governments, civil society and private companies for administrative or compliance requirements, business, research, advocacy or public interest objectives.[5] This can include annual reports, research reports, market research, policy briefings and technical reports. Self-publishing has become very common.'
RISKS OF PUBLISHING
[https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/risks-associated-publication]
'Every time you publish something online, whether it's a news article, blog post, podcast, video, or even a user comment, you open yourself up to potential legal liability. This shouldn't come as too much of a surprise because the Internet, after all, is available to anyone who wishes to connect to the network, and even the smallest blog or most obscure discussion forum has the potential to reach hundreds of millions of people throughout the world.
Often the legal risks are small, but not always. The risks you could face when you publish online can take a number of forms, depending on what and how you publish. The sections that follow are not intended to make you an expert on media law, but merely to help you identify potential "red flags" so that when you publish something that might result in liability, you will know to be extra careful and will take the necessary steps to minimize your potential legal risks.
Let's start with the more obvious risks.
First, if you publish information that harms the reputation of another person, group, or organization, or inflicts emotional distress upon another person, you may be liable for "defamation" or "false light." Defamation is the term for a legal claim involving injury to reputation caused by false statements of fact and includes both libel (typically written or recorded statements) and slander (typically spoken statements). False light, which is similar to defamation, generally involves untrue factual implications about the subject that, although they might not hold the subject up to scorn or ridicule, nevertheless cause emotional distress. The crux of both of these claims is falsity; with very rare exceptions, truthful statements and implications that harm another's reputation will not create liability, although they may open you up to other forms of liability if the information you publish is of a personal or highly private nature. We explain the details of defamation and false light and provide some practical tips for avoiding defamation and false light claims in the section on Publishing Information that Harms Reputation.
Second, if you publish private or personal information about someone without their permission, you potentially expose yourself to legal liability even if your portrayal is factually accurate. For example, in most states you can be sued for publishing private facts about another person, even if those facts are true. The term "private facts" refers to information about someone's personal life that has not previously been revealed to the public, that is not of legitimate public concern, and the publication of which would be offensive to a reasonable person. This could include such things as writing about a person's medical condition, sexual activities, or financial troubles.
If you use someone else's name, likeness, or other personal attributes without their permission for an exploitative purpose you could also face liability for misappropriation or violation of the right of publicity. Usually, people run into trouble in this area when they use someone's name or photograph in a commercial setting, such as in advertising or other promotional activities. But, some states also prohibit use of another person's identity for the user's own personal benefit, whether or not the purpose is strictly commercial. We discuss the details of misappropriation/right of publicity and private facts claims and provide some practical tips for avoiding these claims in the section on Publishing Personal and Private Information.
Third, if you have web forums, allow reader comments, host guest bloggers on your site, or if you repost information that you receive from RSS feeds, section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA 230”) will likely shield you from liability for certain kinds of problematic statements made by your users, guests and other third-parties on your site. This important federal law protects you from tort liability for statements contained in these materials – and any other user-submitted content – you publish on your site. You will not lose this immunity even if you moderate or edit this content, whether for accuracy or civility, so long as your edits do not substantially alter the meaning of the original statements. Keep in mind that CDA 230 will only protect you if a third-party – not you or your employee or someone acting under your direction – posts something on your blog or website. It does not shield you from liability for your own statements. We cover this protection in more detail in the section on Publishing the Statements and Content of Others.
Fourth, if you publish or use the creative work of others, their trademarks, or certain confidential business information without the permission of the owner, you may be exposing yourself to legal liability for violations of intellectual property law. Fortunately, if you allow your site's user to post this type of content you can protect yourself from copyright infringement claims (but not trademark or other intellectual property claims) under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). In order to take advantage of the DMCA, you must register an agent with the Copyright Office to receive notices of infringement, establish effective "notice-and-takedown" procedures, promptly remove content when a copyright owner notifies you that it is infringing, and have no knowledge that the material in question is infringing. We cover liability associated with copyright, trademark, and trade secrets, as well as the procedures you should follow under the DMCA, in the section on Intellectual Property.
Fifth, if you are a blogger or social media user who reviews or otherwise writes about products and services, the Federal Trade Commission has issued "Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising" that may impose disclosure requirements on you. These guidelines require that you disclose "material connections" you may have with a company whose products or services you "endorse." Without the legal jargon, this means that bloggers and social media users must disclose their relationship with a company when they are being paid or otherwise compensated by the company to comment favorably on its products or services. We cover these requirements in the section on Publishing Product or Service Endorsements.
Lastly, as you publish your work online you may want to correct things you have previously published. Your willingness to fix past errors in your work will provide several benefits. It will make your work more accurate and reliable and will likely diminish your liability for defamation and other potential legal claims. We explain the benefits of correcting your errors and provide some practical tips for handling requests to correct or remove material in the section on Correcting or Retracting Your Work After Publication.'
